Hano v. State of Nevada ( 2024 )

Attorney General 2 NATHAN M. CLAUS (Bar No. 15889) Deputy Attorney General 3 State of Nevada Office of the Attorney General 4 1 State of Nevada Way, Ste. 100 Las Vegas, Nevada 89119 5 (702) 486-7629 (phone) (702) 486-3768 (fax) 6 Email: nclaus@ag.nv.gov 7 Attorneys for Defendants Jeremy Bean, Gregory Bryan, John Faulkner, 8 Cornelius Finley, Mary Manalastas, Julie Matousek, Michael Minev, Gary Piccinini, Arianna Rhynard, 9 Jonathan Weber and Brian Williams 10 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 12 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 13 DAVID A. HANO, Case No. 2:19-cv-02246-GMN-EJY 14 Plaintiff, 15 v. JOINT REQUEST FOR A 16 STATE OF NEVADA, EX REL NEVADA SETTLEMENT CONFERENCE AND DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et MOTION TO EXTEND DISPOSTIVE 17 al., MOTION DEADLINE 18 Defendants. [FIRST REQUEST] 19 20 21 Plaintiff David Hano and Defendants Jeremy Bean, Gregory Bryan, John Faulkner, 22 Cornelius Finley, Mary Manalastas, Julie Matousek, Michael Minev, Gary Piccinini, 23 Arianna Rhynard, Jonathan Weber, and Brian Williams, by and through their respective 24 counsels hereby submit their Joint Request for A Settlement Conference and Motion To 25 Extend Dispositive Motion Deadline. This is the first request to extend the dispositive 26 motion deadline. 27 // 28 // 2 I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY 3 This is an offender civil rights matter. Plaintiff David Hano (Hano) is an offender 4 who was formerly in custody of the Nevada Department of Corrections (NDOC) at High 5 Desert State Prison (HDSP). See ECF No. 23. Hano is suing Defendants for alleged 6 violations of his rights under the Eighth Amendment of the US Constitution. ECF No. 213. 7 Discovery in the matter closed on November 4, 2024. ECF No. 222. The current 8 deadline for dispositive motions is November 27, 2024. Id. 9 II. ARGUMENT 10 A. Request for a Settlement Conference 11 After the parties completed discovery, counsel for both parties agreed that they 12 believe a settlement conference would likely help resolve this case in its entirety. Hano is 13 no longer in the custody of NDOC and currently resides in Oklahoma and would request 14 that any settlement conference be conducted via zoom or some other electronic platform. 15 Defendants do not oppose this request. 16 Defendants request that if this court approves and orders a settlement conference 17 that this Court exercise its discretion and excuse the attendance of the individually named 18 defendants from the conference. Defendants will ensure that the settlement conference is 19 attended by individuals on behalf of Defendants who have settlement authority. Further, 20 Defendants believe that excusing the individual Defendant’s from attendance would help 21 further the settlement discussions and allow a more fruitful and quicker discussion. Hano 22 indicates that he does not oppose such a request. 23 The parties also discussed the timeline for the settlement conference and are in 24 agreement that they are open to whatever time the Court sets this matter since there are 25 no urgent matters that would require an expedited conference in this case. 26 B. Request to Extend Dispositive motion Deadline 27 Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b), the “court may, for good cause, extend the time . . . 28 with or without motion or notice . . . if a request is made, before the original time or its 2 by the discovery plan, scheduling order, or other order must … be supported by a showing 3 of good cause for the extension.” In addition, “[a] request made within 21 days of the subject 4 deadline must be supported by a showing of good cause.” Local Rule 26-3 5 The parties are seeking an extension of time to file their dispositive motions to 30 6 days after a settlement conference is completed. The parties believe that a settlement 7 conference would likely lead to a result that would resolve the case in its entirety and it 8 would be in the interest of judicial economy under Fed. R. Civ. P 1 to wait to file the 9 dispositive motions until after the judicial settlement conference. 10 Accordingly, the parties respectfully request that the extension be granted for good 11 cause shown. See Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253, 1260, (9th Cir. 2010) 12 (holding that the “district court abused its discretion in denying party’s timely motion” to 13 extend time because the party “demonstrated the ‘good cause’ required by Rule 6, and 14 because there was no reason to believe that [the party] was acting in bad faith or was 15 misrepresenting his reasons for asking for the extension”). 16 III. CONCLUSION 17 Based on the foregoing, and for good cause, Defendants request the entry of an Order 18 setting a settlement conference that excuses the attendance of the individually named 19 Defendants. The parties also request an extension of time until 30 days after the completion 20 of the settlement conference to submit dispositive motions. 21 /// 22 /// 23 /// 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 2 DATED this 6th day of November, DATED this 6th day of November, 3 2024. 2024. 4 AARON D. FORD, Attorney General CURRIDEN & ASSOCIATES 5 /s/ Nathan M. Claus By: /s/ Alex He 6 Alex He, Esq. NATHAN M. CLAUS Nevada Bar No. 15889 Nevada Bar No. 15054 7 Deputy Attorney General Curriden & Associates State of Nevada 8 P.O. Box 24508 1 State of Nevada Way, Ste. 100 Las Oakland, CA 94623-1508 9 Tel: 702.822.9504 Vegas, Nevada 89119 Tel: (702) 486-7629 10 Attorneys for Plaintiff Attorneys for Defendants 11 12 ORDER 13 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Joint Request for a Settlement Conference 14 and Motion to Extend Dispositive Motions Deadline (ECF Nos. 223 and 224) is 15 GRANTED. 16 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a separate Order will issue setting the 17 settlement conference. The individually named Defendants will not be required to 18 attend, however Defendants must be represented by parties with full settlement 19 authority. 20 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that dispositive motions will be due 30 days after 21 the settlement conference if the case does not settle. 22 23 U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE 24 Date: November 6, 2024 25 26 27 28